Long Game 36: State of Being

[Ecthelion III he/him]

Consider this hypothetical situation. Suppose I have a gun and attempt to shoot a terrorist, but I missed and instead shot someone who was trying to rob me. Was I not justified in shooting the person who was trying to rob me just because I was originally shooting for the terrorist? I think not.

I would disagree that in your hypothetical situation, if I were to shoot an assailant, the action would be self-defense and not murder. Once again, it is not the original intent that matters, but what actually happened. And what actually happened was a man shot someone who was attacking him. Read: self-defense.

(Spec doc as a jury is fine! Heck, make all the uninvolved players part of the jury, too. By uninvolved I mean everyone except you, Alvron, and Drake.)

[Ecthelion III he/him]

I'm officially delaying turnover by 24 hours. I always hate doing this, though not as much as putting a new cycle up without a write-up, and I think it's fairer to put it off by a full day so it's at the same time of day.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

30 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

Consider this hypothetical situation. Suppose I have a gun and attempt to shoot a terrorist, but I missed and instead shot someone who was trying to rob me. Was I not justified in shooting the person who was trying to rob me just because I was originally shooting for the terrorist? I think not.

I would disagree that in your hypothetical situation, if I were to shoot an assailant, the action would be self-defense and not murder. Once again, it is not the original intent that matters, but what actually happened. And what actually happened was a man shot someone who was attacking him. Read: self-defense.

(Spec doc as a jury is fine! Heck, make all the uninvolved players part of the jury, too. By uninvolved I mean everyone except you, Alvron, and Drake.)

There's a very clear difference: intention. In any respectable legal system, intention matters. It's what differentiates murder from manslaughter, and indeed from self defence. If we were to consider solely the impact of the action, and not why it occurred, we should be consistent in this, and treat those who kill in self defence in exactly the same manner as we treat those guilty of premeditated murder. I'm sure you'd agree that the principle of intention applies here, and would not advocate finding those who kill in self defence guilty of murder. The principle extends throughout the legal system. We do not apply it solely in the case of an individual dying, but always, including in this case. Here, you acted not in the interest of self defence, but with randomly directed violence, and so are guilty of assault, regardless of the actual impact of your actions.

If you shot a robber trying to shoot a terrorist, you would not be guilty of murder, but it would be because of the initial intention of trying to protect yourself from a terrorist, and would apply whether they were a robber or a bystander. It's not an equivalent situation. 

(Ecthelion, I'd suggest you look at any legal system in a western democracy. Intention is incredibly important, and works as I have set out.)

[BrightnessRadiant she/her]

*eats stew and watches the court case from the back

Are we gonna only RP this cycle? XD

[Ecthelion III he/him]

"I sensed movement, equivalent to what a mortal might think of as seeing something out of the corner of my eye, and kicked. This was not "randomly directed violence", as you claim, it was me defending myself against someone of an as-of-yet unknown identity. Whether I knew the identity of the attacker beforehand or not is irrelevant as long as it was self-defense. The only solid evidence you have to go off of

Intent is the difference between premeditated murder and self-defense. Intent is not the difference between assaulting a thief and assaulting an evil shadow monster. My statement "Once again, it is not the original intent that matters, but what actually happened," is not a blanket statement which applies to all cases in 'western democracy', because it does not. However, for the purposes of the difference between assaulting a thief and assaulting an evil shadow monster, intent is not the difference.

 

You also said:

Quote

If you shot a robber trying to shoot a terrorist, you would not be guilty of murder, but it would be because of the initial intention of trying to protect yourself from a terrorist, and would apply whether they were a robber or a bystander. It's not an equivalent situation. 

I believe it is an equivalent situation. The original intention is trying to protect myself and my precious Essence Marks from a servant of Odium (i.e. a terrorist). So I'm shooting a robber trying to shoot a terrorist."

Edited July 28, 2017 by Ecthelion III
OBJECTION! Forgot closing quotation marks

[Orlok Tsubodai]

1 minute ago, Ecthelion III said:

"I sensed movement, equivalent to what a mortal might think of as seeing something out of the corner of my eye, and kicked. This was not "randomly directed violence", as you claim, it was me defending myself against someone of an as-of-yet unknown identity. Whether I knew the identity of the attacker beforehand or not is irrelevant as long as it was self-defense. The only solid evidence you have to go off of

Intent is the difference between premeditated murder and self-defense. Intent is not the difference between assaulting a thief and assaulting an evil shadow monster. My statement "Once again, it is not the original intent that matters, but what actually happened," is not a blanket statement which applies to all cases in 'western democracy', because it does not. However, for the purposes of the difference between assaulting a thief and assaulting an evil shadow monster, intent is not the difference.

 

I believe it is an equivalent situation. The original intention is trying to protect myself and my precious Essence Marks from a servant of Odium (i.e. a terrorist).

You sensed movement, and without looking, as you have admitted not doing, had no way of knowing that your violence was directed at someone deserved of violence. Indeed, you were wrong to lash out, even had it been a servant of Odium. Your claim of self defence should hold no water when you had no way of knowing that you needed to defend yourself, and indeed, as it turned out, did not have to. 

If someone moves behind you, you have no right to attack them for their movement. If you observe them, and have reasonable grounds to believe that they're a threat to you, you may then engage in self defense. Until that point, your action constitutes assault. Whether or not you were lucky, and through pure chance assaulted someone that you would have had a right to defend yourself against, is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. As far as you knew, when you were making the action, you could have assaulted a child.

 

I think the important thing here is that you had no justification for believing yourself to be under attack. You have stated that you had time travel capabilities, yet claim you believed it was a shadow monster. These two statements are completely contradictory, and should give any observer cause to think on the reliability of your future and past statements in this case. 

[Clanky he/him]

If anybody ever needs an expert witness in any scientific field you know where to find me! 

---

Also starting about 17 Hrs from now I will be without internet connection for about 48 Hrs so won't be able to respond to anything at all. 

[Ecthelion III he/him]

I find much fault with this statement:

Quote

you had no way of knowing that you needed to defend yourself, and indeed, as it turned out, did not have to. 

I did not have to defend myself? Mr. Tekiel, your client is not innocent. He was attempting to steal my Essence Marks, and as already stated, is a felony under Silverlight law. May I also note here that you have argued multiple times that we are indeed under Silverlight law and not local law. He was in the process of committing a felony, and I stopped him from doing that by using self-defense. While I may have mistaken his appearance for something else, that is not the point.

And really, once again with the speculation? I did not assault a child, so whether or not I could have assaulted a child does not matter at all to this case. It should be common sense, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that if I defended myself from an unknown assailant and kicked a thief, I should not be found guilty of the charge of meaningful assault, let alone assault with a deadly weapon.

As for your last point, I do apologize for that lapse in judgment. Your client just looked too much like a shadow monster. My mistake.

 

(Do you think it would be prudent to move onto Requiem's charges and the murder thing and let the jury decide on this one? @OrlokTsubodai)

Edited July 28, 2017 by Ecthelion III

[Orlok Tsubodai]

7 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

I find much fault with this statement:

I did not have to defend myself? Mr. Tekiel, your client is not innocent. He was attempting to steal my Essence Marks, and as already stated, is a felony under Silverlight law. May I also note here that you have argued multiple times that we are indeed under Silverlight law and not local law. He was in the process of committing a felony, and I stopped him from doing that by using self-defense. While I may have mistaken his appearance for something else, that is not the point.

And really, once again with the speculation? I did not assault a child, so whether or not I could have assaulted a child does not matter at all to this case. It should be common sense, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that if I defended myself from an unknown assailant and kicked a thief, I should not be found guilty of the charge of meaningful assault, let alone assault with a deadly weapon.

As for your last point, I do apologize for that lapse in judgment. Your client just looked too much like a shadow monster. My mistake.

Indeed, you did not have to. You, as an individual, were not in danger. Your intention was not prevention of a felony, but was to assault the source of the movement behind you. It is indeed fortunate that you, in so doing, prevented an alleged felony, but you acted before you knew whether it was a shadowy figure, a servant of odium, a thief, or indeed Adonalsium himself. That you did prevent a felony is nothing more than circumstantial, and doesn't change that you acted before you had reasonable grounds to consider yourself or your property in danger which is the bar you must pass to prove self defense. Seeing someone attacking you, or stealing from you, does pass that bar. Seeing "movement out of the corner of your eye" does not pass that bar. If we were to set that as the bar, I could attack anyone who passes behind me as and when I choose.

The "speculation" is not speculation, but illustration. It serves to illustrate to our assembled jury that for all you knew when yoy acted, you could have hit a child, and that if they accept your argument, they set the precedent in case law that seeing movement constitutes acceptable grounds for self defence, which will have the consequences of children being attacked by people seeing someone pass behind them, which will be legal as self defence. See the nuance, my dear friend. It is important to your understanding of the issues we address.

[Sami she/her]

Y'all lost me

[Orlok Tsubodai]

@Ecthelion III, I reserve the right to summarise my case tomorrow, but yes, for now, lets move on to the other cases. You'll understand that it takes a while to write the initial case, so it may go up tomorrow morning, PDT.

[Ecthelion III he/him]

OBJECTION! It could not have been Adonalsium himself because I possess the conscience of one sixteenth of Adonalsium!

I rest my case.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Ecthelion III

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

If the current trial is adjourning, do I have leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief? 

I have a vested interest in this case because it may affect legal precedent for my own 

[Ecthelion III he/him]

It's not adjourning yet. Jury will make final verdict tomorrow.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

29 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

If the current trial is adjourning, do I have leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief? 

I have a vested interest in this case because it may affect legal precedent for my own 

There being no independent judge able to grant this, we'll have to use the mutual consent mechanic to authorise Amicus Curiae. It is my belief that Ecthelion is not short of reputation, and that we are not setting precedents, merely applying precedents set in countless cases before us, so I do not provide my consent for you to file an Amicus Curiae brief.

(Drake, we'll no doubt discuss your trial before this trial is completed. I intend to make a post bringing charges against you tomorrow.)

[Elenion he/him]

The courtroom door opened, and Elenion walked in.

"Sorry I'm late, I forgot about..." he said, much too loudly for the formal environment, then trailed off.

Elenion quickly reversed time and determined what the ruckus was all about, then reverted to just before the present to erase the timeframe in which he had interrupted the trial.

"If it is amenable to all members of this trial and to Your Honor, I propose an impartial method of deciding the trial. All potential jurors, selected from the spectator doc and the uninvolved living and dead players of this game, will receive a private personal message from me that Ecthelion cannot read. This will contain a link to a Jury Doc, where the jurors can debate the issues. Before turnover, each juror will submit their vote to me -- guilty or not guilty for each charge -- in the PM. The verdict will be decided by majority vote (yes, a departure from legal precedent) and the verdict, but not the number of votes from each, will be posted immediately following turnover."

 

Edit:

Currently I'm seeing 5 charges against 4 people (c/p from Jury Doc)

Skai’s Remnant: Assault with a Deadly Weapon; Murder

Phil: Impersonation of a Silverlight Official

Requiem: Slander

Ecthelion III: Libel

Are these charges agreeable?

 

(Jury Doc PMs will be sent out shortly. This is going to be fun.)

Edited July 28, 2017 by Elenion

[Sparkrunner he/him]

@OrlokTsubodai Could you, as a student of the law, tell a pedestrian such as I the Unkalaki legal precedent for land ownership, as well as the precedent under Silverlight law for claiming land, or conquest?

[cloudjumper he/him]

I will be going on vacation and will not be here for a while.

[Sparkrunner he/him]

I will be going on a campout- not active for most of today and tomorrow.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

Before I address the charges of murder, corruption/impersonation, slander and libel, I'd like to clarify the case addressed yesterday.

There are ultimately two legal questions being debated. The actual result of Mr Hooded Man's action isn't in question. He struck out, and caused injury to, another individual. The first point of contention is Mr Hooded Man's claim that the intention of the action was in self defence, and the second his argument that intention doesn't ultimately matter, because the net effect of his action was to defend his property.

I'll address first his aspersion that intention doesn't matter. He argues that despite not knowing that he was defending his property, his defence of self defence should hold, for he did defend his property. This can be summarised as a position that whatever the intention of an action, only the impact determines its legality. 

Let's apply this principle elsewhere (for a legal principle must be applied consistently). Person A is walking down the street and believes that Person B is raising a revolver with which to shoot Person A. Person A then shoots Person B, in self defence, only to find that Person B had merely been opening an umbrella. Under Mr Hooded Man's proposed legal principle, Person A would be found guilty of murder, for despite their intention of self defence, the actual result of their action was the death of an innocent. Mr Hooded Man's proposed legal principle does not work. This example has been picked to illustrate how it applies taken to an extreme, but the situation we find ourselves in is exactly the same, and once again, the principle does not work. To accept it in this circumstance means accepting it in the circumstance of the example, and I hope none of our esteemed jury would wish to find those honestly believing themselves to be defending themselves proportionately guilty of murder.

The second question is whether his actions should qualify as having been with the intention of self defence. Let us remind ourselves of the evidence:

Quote

The cloaked man sensed movement and kicked out

If we accept Mr Hooded Man's claim of self defence, we set the bar for anyone being able to lash out with impunity as sensing movement. I do not believe that anyone, acting in their right mind, would believe that to be a sensible requirement before self defence is considered right. Mr Hooded Man had no knowledge of who he was striking out at, nor did he make any effort to ascertain that knowledge before acting. If he had done so, we would face a very different legal question, but as it stands, we have before us an individual guilty of rash action, prone to violence before making any effort to determine whether violence is necessary. He was lucky, but his luck does not change that he acted before knowing that he did have to defend his property, making his action the crime of assault that fortuitously did defend his property, rather than acting with the intention of defending his property.

The fact that he acted without the intention of self defence, without taking any reasonable action to determine whether self defence was warranted, and the importance of the intention of self defence established above ensure that there is a clear case available to determine that Mr Hooded Man should be found guilty of assault against my client.

 

I'm currently camping, and am about to have to go on a hike, so will almost certainly not be able to get all charges up well before the end of the cycle, so I suspect the trial will have to continue into the next day cycle.

Edited July 28, 2017 by OrlokTsubodai

[manukos he/him]

Ister Mo liked the horneater peaks nothing compared to the majestic beauty of the scenary of his home town back on Nalthis . But the peaks had a certain awe inspiring ruggedness,  erget  would had definately loved it here  .  He turned  around to see Elenion aproaching form behind  "hey there..."

Ister entered the Unkalaki courthouse and vleared his trhroat "Elenion asked me to participate as a juror , but considering the fact that  Mr hooded cloak ,rescued me and has given me a second chance . I could never in good conscience call myself an impartial juror . So in order to preserve (no pun intended)  the integrity of silverlight's institution of justice, I will have to decline ."

Edited July 28, 2017 by Manukos

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

I'd guess that the spec doc is the ideal source of jurors.

[Jondesu he/him]

15 hours ago, Sami said:

Y'all lost me

You're not the only one, and I'm a co-GM this game (not that I have that big of a job, just keeping tabs on who's posting and voting).  That's ok, I'mma just let it play out.

[asterion137 he/him]

I'll be MIA for around a week for a vacation

[Ecthelion III he/him]

@OrlokTsubodai Let's get a ruling on the assault charge and Phil's charge before the end of the cycle, so we can get those out of the way and have them in the write-up. We can do murder, slander, and libel tomorrow.